Referee was correct to give an indirect free kick for their first goal. Hedley purposely played the ball back to Connell where it then bounced off his foot onto his hand/arm. The goalkeeper doesn’t need to catch the ball for it to be a back pass. But it’s not a bookable offence, presumably why the referee has then claimed it was for dissent.....

Do they not?

I mean, I believe you, but I genuinely don’t think I have *ever* seen that rule applied before. In fact, while I’m struggling for specific examples off the top of my head, I’ve definitely seen goalkeepers save misplaced back passes and pretty sure I’ve never seen a free kick or card issued because of it.

If it deflects off a defender, its not a backpass, but if its a deliberate action by defender in kicking ball then it is a backpass.

It has to be kicked. A header is not a backpass

Did you misread my post? No one said a header can be a back pass.

I’m aware of the earlier point, but I have only ever seen that enforced when a goalkeeper picks the ball up.

I’ll assume you weren’t at our game, but for context, Hedley plays the ball back to Connell and mis hits it up in the air, Connell sticks out a hand and parries it (looked like it would have gone in otherwise).

Honestly, I have never seen a back pass enforced before in such a context, at any level of the game - and I’m absolutely sure I’ve seen keepers make saves from errant passes before unpunished.

At the time, myself and I think many others not in the tinshed or hospitality thought he must’ve handled it outside of the box and were baffled it wasn’t a red card (as it turns out he was *just* inside the box, but it was right on the edge).

Truly strange. I realise I could be wrong, but I cannot ever think of another incident of a back pass being given for a keeper not picking the ball up, just parrying it. I’m not doubting this may be the rule - but if it is the rule, it’s a damned stupid one. As pointed out above, it’s there to stop time wasting. Surely a keeper should be allowed to save a mis hit pass.

Referee was correct to give an indirect free kick for their first goal. Hedley purposely played the ball back to Connell where it then bounced off his foot onto his hand/arm. The goalkeeper doesn’t need to catch the ball for it to be a back pass. But it’s not a bookable offence, presumably why the referee has then claimed it was for dissent.....

Do they not?

I mean, I believe you, but I genuinely don’t think I have *ever* seen that rule applied before. In fact, while I’m struggling for specific examples off the top of my head, I’ve definitely seen goalkeepers save misplaced back passes and pretty sure I’ve never seen a free kick or card issued because of it.

If it deflects off a defender, its not a backpass, but if its a deliberate action by defender in kicking ball then it is a backpass.

It has to be kicked. A header is not a backpass

Did you misread my post? No one said a header can be a back pass.

I’m aware of the earlier point, but I have only ever seen that enforced when a goalkeeper picks the ball up.

I’ll assume you weren’t at our game, but for context, Hedley plays the ball back to Connell and mis hits it up in the air, Connell sticks out a hand and parries it (looked like it would have gone in otherwise).

Honestly, I have never seen a back pass enforced before in such a context, at any level of the game - and I’m absolutely sure I’ve seen keepers make saves from errant passes before unpunished.

At the time, myself and I think many others not in the tinshed or hospitality thought he must’ve handled it outside of the box and were baffled it wasn’t a red card (as it turns out he was *just* inside the box, but it was right on the edge).

Truly strange. I realise I could be wrong, but I cannot ever think of another incident of a back pass being given for a keeper not picking the ball up, just parrying it. I’m not doubting this may be the rule - but if it is the rule, it’s a damned stupid one. As pointed out above, it’s there to stop time wasting. Surely a keeper should be allowed to save a mis hit pass.

My post above confirms that you’re correct and the ref was wrong. Simple.

Nothing wrong with the Team . Nor Management.
Give your all , expect a Contract extension.
Whispering grass suggests they are being blocked .
So can't expect 100% on pitch .
If not matched off it .
Then I will be called a Troll for telling the truth .

Is 3-2-1 back ? No clue whatsoever

Maybe he means the management and the players are concerned that contracts are running out in some cases and the club aren't willing to discuss new contracts, so the players concerned may not be giving all they can if they think the club are deliberately stalling over their futures.

WHat the original poster is saying may be just gossip but if its not then we could well see some of our key players move on for nothing in the summer.

Unless or until he backs up his inuendo with some facts it is and will remain GOSSIP. Sounds very much like someone with an axe to grind

The pitch was awful. We stand right on the side of it (like most people) and virtually every pass by every player bobbled and jumped along the surface. I'd have to see it again but I think I'm right in saying that the state of the pitch was to blame for their first goal. It cost us yesterday - we couldn't pass up in the air because of the wind and we couldn't pass on the ground because of the pitch, and that's how we've been beating these "better" teams, by skilful passing. I realise that Guiseley coped better with conditions than us.

Since we've been at B.M I've been surprised at how well the pitch usually plays at this time of year. So what's gone wrong now?

Have the Rugby club had a lot of games lately or got some extra fat players rolling around - as Divas.

I think last season especially there were a lot of fixture clashes that meant the rugby was played on the seconds pitch. This season there seems to have been far fewer. By the end of the season the pitch is usually knackered but it seems to have happened earlier this season despite the weather being fairly kind.

The weather has been quite mild, but I think it has also been wetter than it would usually be. Less frost and cold, more drizzle and rain. It’s probably had an adverse effect.

Even taking aside the egg chasers, we will have had more games than usual I should think? I also feel like we have played more games by this point than usual. We also had an awful lot of home games in December and January. (Since Nov 30th we’ve had 8 home games - last year we only had five in that period of time).

Conversely, due to the unusually mild weather, it may also recover more quickly. Honestly, it was a bit chewed up, but no worse than I expect for this level of football. I’ve seen much, much worse from teams who don’t even share with a rugby team.

To imply players may not be trying because they haven't yet had contract offers is completely disrespectful. We've all seen how genuine and committed the players are. Besides there are options on a lot of them. Also the surge which sent us soaring up the league hardly suggests that.

Last edited by LoidLucan on Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Referee was correct to give an indirect free kick for their first goal. Hedley purposely played the ball back to Connell where it then bounced off his foot onto his hand/arm. The goalkeeper doesn’t need to catch the ball for it to be a back pass. But it’s not a bookable offence, presumably why the referee has then claimed it was for dissent.....

Do they not?

I mean, I believe you, but I genuinely don’t think I have *ever* seen that rule applied before. In fact, while I’m struggling for specific examples off the top of my head, I’ve definitely seen goalkeepers save misplaced back passes and pretty sure I’ve never seen a free kick or card issued because of it.

If it deflects off a defender, its not a backpass, but if its a deliberate action by defender in kicking ball then it is a backpass.

It has to be kicked. A header is not a backpass

Did you misread my post? No one said a header can be a back pass.

I’m aware of the earlier point, but I have only ever seen that enforced when a goalkeeper picks the ball up.

I’ll assume you weren’t at our game, but for context, Hedley plays the ball back to Connell and mis hits it up in the air, Connell sticks out a hand and parries it (looked like it would have gone in otherwise).

Honestly, I have never seen a back pass enforced before in such a context, at any level of the game - and I’m absolutely sure I’ve seen keepers make saves from errant passes before unpunished.

At the time, myself and I think many others not in the tinshed or hospitality thought he must’ve handled it outside of the box and were baffled it wasn’t a red card (as it turns out he was *just* inside the box, but it was right on the edge).

Truly strange. I realise I could be wrong, but I cannot ever think of another incident of a back pass being given for a keeper not picking the ball up, just parrying it. I’m not doubting this may be the rule - but if it is the rule, it’s a damned stupid one. As pointed out above, it’s there to stop time wasting. Surely a keeper should be allowed to save a mis hit pass.

My post above confirms that you’re correct and the ref was wrong. Simple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really need to see the video - is it the case then that it bounced up off Connell’s boot onto his hand? If so, it’s a ridiculous decision. That’s not even a handball unless an outfield player gains an advantage from doing it, and it’s absolutely not a booking.

(I had a particularly bad view of this from around the dugouts, in case that wasn’t obvious).

Maybe some players have enquired about new or extensions to contracts and been told it’s still too early in the season for such discussions. All it then takes is someone with an axe to grind against the club to turn it into the earlier post in an attempt to cause mischief.

dfc4me wrote:Maybe some players have enquired about new or extensions to contracts and been told it’s still too early in the season for such discussions. All it then takes is someone with an axe to grind against the club to turn it into the earlier post in an attempt to cause mischief.

Utter shite.. Players have bad days like we all do, We didn't do our jobs properly like we can so let's move on get behind the lads and stop creating rumours

I mean, I believe you, but I genuinely don’t think I have *ever* seen that rule applied before. In fact, while I’m struggling for specific examples off the top of my head, I’ve definitely seen goalkeepers save misplaced back passes and pretty sure I’ve never seen a free kick or card issued because of it.

If it deflects off a defender, its not a backpass, but if its a deliberate action by defender in kicking ball then it is a backpass.

It has to be kicked. A header is not a backpass

Did you misread my post? No one said a header can be a back pass.

I’m aware of the earlier point, but I have only ever seen that enforced when a goalkeeper picks the ball up.

I’ll assume you weren’t at our game, but for context, Hedley plays the ball back to Connell and mis hits it up in the air, Connell sticks out a hand and parries it (looked like it would have gone in otherwise).

Honestly, I have never seen a back pass enforced before in such a context, at any level of the game - and I’m absolutely sure I’ve seen keepers make saves from errant passes before unpunished.

At the time, myself and I think many others not in the tinshed or hospitality thought he must’ve handled it outside of the box and were baffled it wasn’t a red card (as it turns out he was *just* inside the box, but it was right on the edge).

Truly strange. I realise I could be wrong, but I cannot ever think of another incident of a back pass being given for a keeper not picking the ball up, just parrying it. I’m not doubting this may be the rule - but if it is the rule, it’s a damned stupid one. As pointed out above, it’s there to stop time wasting. Surely a keeper should be allowed to save a mis hit pass.

My post above confirms that you’re correct and the ref was wrong. Simple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I really need to see the video - is it the case then that it bounced up off Connell’s boot onto his hand? If so, it’s a ridiculous decision. That’s not even a handball unless an outfield player gains an advantage from doing it, and it’s absolutely not a booking.

(I had a particularly bad view of this from around the dugouts, in case that wasn’t obvious).

To be fair if it happens as you described then yeh it sounds like it was incorrect.

For perspective though this only changed in the summer. Until this season regardless it was an offence but this season the wording was updated which mentions a mis-kick.

Interestingly it's has been seen as some level goalkeepers making some very dubious "attempts" to clear before slicing it and catching the sliced ball...

Unless or until he backs up his inuendo with some facts it is and will remain GOSSIP. Sounds very much like someone with an axe to grind

Incoherent rambling isn't necessarily a lie that should be written off.

There has been rumblings of the club not allowing players to discuss contracts.

People can lose their blob over this if they want - but it might pay to remember we can barely scrape 1,400 for a home match despite (at start of play yesterday) being in the play offs, whilst at the same time trying to financially compete with many clubs of far greater resources.

Ultimately we will have the team and players that we can afford, and that might just be mid table NLN plodders - if we can't increase income.

To imply players may not be trying because they haven't yet had contract offers is completely disrespectful. We've all seen how genuine and committed the players are. Besides there are options on a lot of them. Also the surge which sent us soaring up the league hardly suggests that.

Some players don't have options. Though that isn't necessarily down to the cub.

To imply players may not be trying because they haven't yet had contract offers is completely disrespectful. We've all seen how genuine and committed the players are. Besides there are options on a lot of them. Also the surge which sent us soaring up the league hardly suggests that.

Some players don't have options. Though that isn't necessarily down to the cub.

Going back to the original post, which mentioned some of the problems facing Guiseley by having to adjust to a new goalkeeper and lacking their leading scorer. It made me think that we would be well advised to not do a Darlo Pete, and assume that this made them there for the taking. We have seen ourselves take on new loan keepers who have played well and who have quickly acquired hero status (were we not fielding one of the very same yesterday?). New loan keepers don't equate to reject rubbish and I had expectations that on his debut this lad was probably going to want to impress. I thought in the early phase of the game, when we did have some momentum in attack, he looked very assured and came out quickly to smother a Martin one on one. He may have been more suspect if there had been more initial pressure put on their defence, but they screened him very well, and our own fingers and thumbs attack hardly gave him a working over.
Looking back at the game, and trying to remove some of the instant emotional response to a heavy defeat, it has been easy to agree with the majority view that we were not at the races yesterday, but I would be reluctant to jump on the bandwagons that have, seemingly, wanted to rubbish virtually everything that happened. First, I think Guiseley played a very good game, and had obviously taken to heart some of the mistakes they made in their home game and made it more difficult for us to play our game. On the other hand, they must have been baffled and quite surprised that in some sort of attempted sympathy with their position we decided that we would voluntarily play without our leading goal scorer. The budding 'partnership' of Reid and Campbell, seems to have given the side something that was missed after O'Neill went back to Boro. I can only think that yesterday was AA going into Tinkerman mode and wanting to see what Martin had to offer over 90 minutes after getting a bit of match fitness with a few sub appearances. It didn't really come off but if it had, we would, no doubt, be hailing his wonderful man management for giving us a different dimension up front. Although some on here have been rather quick to dismiss this as a non starter I would not expect every new player who ever joined a side to have an instant impact, nice though that would be. It was Martin's first 90 minutes and I would be reluctant to mark his card and reject him on that first full game, especially as others have also failed to come up to their usual standard as well. To be fair to Martin, he did try to put himself about and get on the end of things, but the through passes and attempts to get around the back of their defence rarely came off. From the off, however, I did not see a natural sympathy of understanding between Reid and Martin as there has been between Reid and Campbell. They often seemed to be too often on top of each other to get the benefit of incisive knock-ons and through balls, and both were well handled by the two central defenders who didn't make this any easier. But this doesn't mean it couldn't work against a different side and with more experience of working together.
Reading the thoughts on the first goal I confess that being at the other end of the ground didn't help understand what had happened, and the natural thought was that Connell had handled outside the box. Others who were better placed have now made it clear that the incident was being dealt with as a back-pass, which on the basis of what has been discussed above, seems to have been dreadfully mishandled (pun intended) by the official. Without that incident the whole game would have taken on a different complexion and coming out in the second half would have seen us in a less desperate state of mind, with all to play for. And a second controversial incident for the penalty was also not going to improve the overall feeling that the world was against us that particular afternoon. Take out those two turning points and reflect on the impact of Thompson and Campbell coming on at 0-0 and you could make a case out for things coming out in our favour, despite having not knocked doors out of windows in the game up to that time. Yes the overall whole was not a great experience, and looking back from how the game ended it was easy to see it as a complete disaster, but I think we could reflect a little differently on it and maybe just park it as a day when things just did not come together and were unduly influenced by some rather dubious refereeing decisions.

Martin might have endeared himself to our supporters a bit more if he had made some kind of effort to throw himself at donowas cross towards the end which just needed a touch in. And stopped trying to do stupid fancy flicks at the start of the second half which were never going to come off against such good opposition and has he won a header in an opponent's box yet need I continue....

Looks like Martin has become the new whipping boy! Get stuck in there lads.
It was a gash performance all round.

Help get the club back to Darlo by helping to spread the word about the "Back to Darlo!" fund. The image on the right will be constantly updated with the latest total so please feel free to use the image link below the thermometer on your own signatures, blogs, websites, etc.

Old Git wrote:From what I’ve seen of Reid he looks like he could have a real future as a central defender. Would love to see him given an extended run there as he has all the skills to make a success of it.

Has looked very solid in that position both times he helped out.Good shout.

It was a bad day all round made worse by our rivals getting points.Think it was DFR prematch commentary on "Fortress Blackwell Meadows" that jinxed the whole thing.

You're not pinning this one on me, sorry

Fair point, Mikkyx. Quite a lot of fans were making us favourites before the game and perhaps the team were overconfident. Add in the fact Guiseley wanted revenge after their loss last week, they wanted it more than we did & it really showed.

To imply players may not be trying because they haven't yet had contract offers is completely disrespectful. We've all seen how genuine and committed the players are. Besides there are options on a lot of them. Also the surge which sent us soaring up the league hardly suggests that.

Some players don't have options. Though that isn't necessarily down to the cub.

Is it normal for any team in any division to sort out contracts for the next season in January? I mean if they are all signed up, what keeps the players motivated and on their toes then.

It’s too early for this - I don’t believe dilly dally or whatever he’s called.

Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

It will be interesting to see Armstrong's stance on Thommo, Galbraith, Wheatley and Trotman all of whom will have been on larger contracts prior to is arrival. I would assume they will be offered reduced terms if they wish to stay.

Throw in Ainge who will be out the door end of the season as well as a couple more I can see being offloaded.

To imply players may not be trying because they haven't yet had contract offers is completely disrespectful. We've all seen how genuine and committed the players are. Besides there are options on a lot of them. Also the surge which sent us soaring up the league hardly suggests that.

Some players don't have options. Though that isn't necessarily down to the cub.

Is it normal for any team in any division to sort out contracts for the next season in January? I mean if they are all signed up, what keeps the players motivated and on their toes then.

It’s too early for this - I don’t believe dilly dally or whatever he’s called.

Why are any of you giving credence to the ramblings of an obvious numb nut?

It will be interesting to see Armstrong's stance on Thommo, Galbraith, Wheatley and Trotman all of whom will have been on larger contracts prior to is arrival. I would assume they will be offered reduced terms if they wish to stay.

Throw in Ainge who will be out the door end of the season as well as a couple more I can see being offloaded.

I can’t see a valid playing reason to be offering Galbraith and Thompson the same terms I’m afraid. Wheatley and Trotman might. The other two aren’t getting any younger.

Very strange game yesterday. The match reminded me of an FA Cup game where we were playing a team a few divisions above and we didn't get a sniff. Every clearance out of defence by them went to one of their players, so we hardly recycled anything. Every time we tried to come forward they pressed our midfield so hard that we surrendered possession almost immediately.

We seemed like a team of complete strangers yesterday. Movement off the ball was non-existent. The reason for this lies somewhere in the axis of the pitch, our own ineptitude, and Guiseley playing as well as they could. One other factor was the wind. Incredible bad luck that they had the benefit of a strong wind in the first half and we did well to limit them to one goal. Incredibly, the wind dropped at half time so we didn't gain any benefit in the 2nd half, so we were knackered by the start of the 2nd half after playing against it, which they should have had to have suffered but didn't. I think yesterday that anything that could go wrong did.

As for Gary Martin, he's not made a positive difference at all yet. A few people are moaning about him in this regard and have written him off. He hasn't had much service so far to be fair so we'll have to see.

For what it's worth I think our current position is about right for us. On our day we're capable of beating anyone. However, when we're bad, we're really bad.

Bang on.

It hasn't clicked for Martin at all yet. It was fairly obvious months ago that he was signing for us and was really looking forward to it. I just hope the move turns out well and he can live up to the hype that he himself helped to generate. He really hasn't had any service though, and it's odd that we seemed to be playing less crosses into the box yesterday than we have done with Campbell leading the line.

Saturday was the first time since we reformed that i've left a game early. We were absolutely dire. Guiseley have a few good players and were well organised, but they aren't a particularly great side and we made them look like one. Starting to wonder why Holness hasn't been used recently, especially with Reid being as ineffective as he was yesterday. Donowa was our only bright spot really, but hitting diagonals to him can only be so effective when the rest of the plan isn't working.

The one thing I have noticed over the last two games is the lack of supporting each other which was the mantra of AA" do your job and half your other teammates". Numerous times at Chester and on Saturday players leaving the ball for a team mate to deal with and then turning around and seeing the ball at the feet of the opposition and a shot or cross coming in. Previously we had atleast two closing players down and a higher level of support than in recent games.
It is unfair to single out Watson or Hedley at present but the team all appear very quiet & need more talking between each other something Omar can certainly do.

The one thing I have noticed over the last two games is the lack of supporting each other which was the mantra of AA" do your job and half your other teammates". Numerous times at Chester and on Saturday players leaving the ball for a team mate to deal with and then turning around and seeing the ball at the feet of the opposition and a shot or cross coming in. Previously we had atleast two closing players down and a higher level of support than in recent games.
It is unfair to single out Watson or Hedley at present but the team all appear very quiet & need more talking between each other something Omar can certainly do.

Yeah i noticed that too. Particularly with some of the forward line under hitting passes or trying little flick-ons or passes back into midfield. Expecting that someone else would pick up the slack and get to the ball. Both a failure of the game plan and a bit of laziness on the individual player's behalf i think.